Allowed

Pradeep Sahdev Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2018WP/1085/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court found that the parties reached a settlement, the victim withdrew allegations, and no dispute remained, citing precedents on quashing FIRs.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quenched as per prayer clause (a).

Pradeep Sahdev Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp.1085.18.22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1085 OF 2018

¶3

Pradeep Sahdev Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶4

Mr. Ashish Dubey for the Petitioners

¶5

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State

¶6

Ms. Nidhi S. Revankar for the Respondent No. 2

¶7

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. THURSDAY, 14^th JUNE, 2018

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 The above Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings being C. C. No.892/2015 arising out of C.R. No. 492 of 2014 registered with the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai on 6^th October 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said FIR is a consequence of the matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 i.e. the first informant. It seems that the parties are also before the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition A-2882/2013, which was filed by the Respondent No. 2 for a decree of judicial separation. In the said

1/4

SQ Pathan

wp.1085.18.22.doc

proceedings, the parties were referred to the Marriage Counsellor. Before the Marriage Counsellor, the parties arrived at a settlement, which was reduced into writing by way of “Consent Terms for Divorce” which are dated 18^th April 2017. Insofar as the present Petition is concerned, Clause (7) of the Consent Terms is material and is reproduced hereunder :

¶14

“7. Both the parties shall quash / disputes their criminal case No. 492/14 u/s 498A (Andheri Mumbai).”

¶15

2 The Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit bearing today's date i.e. 14^th June 2018 and affirmed before Mr. Bidhu Panicker, Advocate and Notary having his office Near Balaji Temple, Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai. In the said affidavit, paragraph 5 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder :

¶16

“5. I out of my own free will, without there being any pressure and influence withdrawing the allegation leveled in the FIR. I further confirm that I agreed for the settlement and had no objection for quashing of the Criminal Case initiated by me. I further submit that the withdrawal of allegations from Criminal Proceedings is being made without any undue influence, coercion and pressure on me.”

¶17

However, prior to the said paragraph 5, it has been averred that

¶18

the parties have reached a settlement on account of the intervention of

2/4

SQ Pathan

wp.1085.18.22.doc

relatives and other family members and which settlement has been arrived at considering the betterment of the children.

¶23

3 The Respondent No. 2-Ajita Pradeep Kamble is personally present in Court. She is identified by the learned counsel Ms. Nidhi Revankar. She is also identified by her Aadhar Card bearing No. 571415747074. When put in the box and queried, she states that she has been read over and explained the contents of the affidavit dated 14^th June 2018, which has been tendered by her learned counsel in Court today. She further states that she has understood the contents of the said affidavit. She states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she does not desire to proceed with the case in question. She lastly states that she has filed the said affidavit on her own free will and volition.

¶24

4 The Petitioner No. 1-Pradeep Kamble is also personally present in Court. He is the husband of the Respondent No. 2. When put in the box and queried, he accepts the factum of settlement having arrived at between the parties. He further states that he is abiding by the Consent Terms in the matter of deposit of maintenance on account of the children.

3/4

SQ Pathan

wp.1085.18.22.doc

5 In view of the statement recorded of the Petitioner No. 1, it is

¶29

not necessary to record the statements of the other Petitioners, who are the relatives of the Petitioner No.1. The filing of the Consent Terms in the Family Court, the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 dated 14^th June 2018, the statements of the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 when put in the box and queried, leads to a conclusion that the parties have settled their dispute and as a result, the Respondent No. 2 does not desire to proceed with the case in question.

¶30

6 Having regard to the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.² , no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings in question pending. The above Criminal Writ Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶31

7 The above Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶33

2 2014 AIR SCW 2065

¶34

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶35

4/4

¶36

SQ Pathan

Pradeep Sahdev Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sahdev Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Savlaram Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayantilal Laxmanbhai Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aasiem S/O. Sayad Sheikh and Ors. Vs Sumayya D/O. Abdul Razzak Khan and Anr.

Mahesh Mani Paneerselvam Vs the State of Maharashtra through Addl. Chief Secretary (Acs, Home) and Ors.

Babubhai Muljibhai Savalia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abhijeet Dayanand Malondkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.